- From: Robert Collins <robertc@squid-cache.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:23:25 +1300
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:30:36AM +1300, Robert Collins wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Part 1, section 6.1.3.1 "End-to-end and Hop-by-hop Header Fields" >> > says: >> > >> >> The following HTTP/1.1 header fields are hop-by-hop header fields: >> >> >> >> o Connection >> >> o ... >> >> o Upgrade >> >> >> >> All other header fields defined by HTTP/1.1 are end-to-end header >> >> fields. >> >> >> >> Other hop-by-hop header fields MUST be listed in a Connection header >> >> field (Section 8.1). >> > >> > The fact that it says that "Other" fields must be listed means that >> > the headers in the preceding list *don't* need to be listed, right? >> >> No, it has no bearing on the preceding list. >> >> > I suspect that 8.4 and 8.7 are just wrong, and 8.1 needs to clarify >> > that it's only talking about newly-defined connection options, not the >> > predefined-hop-by-one ones, right? >> >> Again, no. You've drawn a conclusion that wasn't suggested at by the text. > > If some text can draw readers to wrong conclusions, we probably need to > find why and to adapt it. Agreed. I suspect just removing the 'Other...' sentence would help. -Rob
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 23:23:53 UTC